--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-17
06:51 ---
Subject: Bug 20693
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Branch: gcc-4_0-branch
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-04-17 06:51:12
Modified files:
libjava: Change
--
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.0.1 |4.0.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20375
--- Additional Comments From rth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-17 06:39
---
Fixed.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-17
06:37 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> Subject: Re: too liberal operator lookup
>
> Why are you pinging bugzilla, and not the list, wherein a c++
> maintainer might see it?
Actually he pinged both.
--
http://gcc.g
--- Additional Comments From rth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-17 06:31
---
Subject: Re: too liberal operator lookup
Why are you pinging bugzilla, and not the list, wherein a c++
maintainer might see it?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17805
--- Additional Comments From rth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-17 06:29
---
patch: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-04/msg01881.html
--
What|Removed |Added
--
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.0/4.1 Regression] C++ ICE|[4.0 Regression] C++ ICE in
|in |assign_parm_find_entry_rtl
--- Additional Comments From aoliva at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-17
06:24 ---
Subject: Re: [PR c++/20103] failure to gimplify constructors for addressable
types
On Apr 17, 2005, Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> Mark, did you give up on COMPOUND_LI
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-17
06:19 ---
Subject: Bug 20375
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-04-17 06:19:18
Modified files:
gcc: ChangeLog
gcc/config/alpha:
--- Additional Comments From mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-17
04:57 ---
The remaining failures are all either due to (a) defects in the V3 testsuite, or
(b) defects in V3 itself, or (c) semi-spurious warnings in the C++ front end.
Postponed until GCC 4.0.1.
--
Wha
--- Additional Comments From mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-17
04:53 ---
Postponed until 4.0.1.
--
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.0.0
--- Additional Comments From mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-17
04:52 ---
We can get by if there are bugs in -fprofile-generate.
Target milestone changed to 4.0.1.
--
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Additional Comments From mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-17
04:51 ---
Removed target milestone; alpha is not a primary or secondary platform.
--
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Additional Comments From mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-17
04:31 ---
See:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2005-04/msg00152.html
for analysis of the:
sorry: semantics of inline function static data 'const size_t __align' are wrong
(you'll wind up with multiple copies)
war
--- Additional Comments From mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-17
04:10 ---
The TYPE_NO_ACCESS_CHECK_P sets off a red flag for me; that suggests that we're
at some point doing access checks directly on _TYPE nodes rather than _DECL
nodes. If so, that's wrong; only declarations hav
--- Additional Comments From mark at codesourcery dot com 2005-04-17 04:03
---
Subject: Re: [PR c++/20103] failure to gimplify constructors for addressable
types
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> Mark, did you give up on COMPOUND_LITERAL_EXPRs in C++ for 4.0? The
> C++ portion of the patch at
--- Additional Comments From mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-17
04:01 ---
Joseph, if I understand correctly, this is now an hppa64-hp-hpux* problem only,
and is not a regression. If that's correct, would you please (a) fill in the
target field, (b) update the summary line to rem
--- Additional Comments From aoliva at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-17
04:00 ---
Subject: Re: [PR c++/17805] limit operator overload candidates for enum operands
On Apr 2, 2005, Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mar 18, 2005, Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
--- Additional Comments From aoliva at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-17
03:59 ---
Subject: Re: [PR c++/20103] failure to gimplify constructors for addressable
types
Mark, did you give up on COMPOUND_LITERAL_EXPRs in C++ for 4.0? The
C++ portion of the patch at http://gcc.gnu.org/PR20103
--- Additional Comments From aoliva at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-17
03:58 ---
Fixed.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
--- Additional Comments From mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-17
03:57 ---
Alexandre, I dropped the ball here. This patch is too much buck for not enough
bang for 4.0.0, but I will review it for 4.0.1.
Target milestone changed to 4.0.1.
--
What|Removed
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-17
03:54 ---
Subject: Bug 20739
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Branch: gcc-4_0-branch
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-04-17 03:54:04
Modified files:
gcc: Change
--- Additional Comments From mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-17
03:53 ---
It looks like we'll end up deciding that the bug here is in failing to issue an
error message on invalid code.
Target milestone pushed back to 4.0.1.
--
What|Removed |A
--- Additional Comments From mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-17
03:51 ---
Joseph has mititgated the problem, and we shan't be doing any further work on
this before 4.0.0. So, I have pushed the target milestone back to 4.0.1.
--
What|Removed |
--- Additional Comments From mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-17
03:50 ---
Fixed in 3.4.4.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESO
--- Additional Comments From mckelvey at maskull dot com 2005-04-17 03:47
---
Created an attachment (id=8664)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=8664&action=view)
Example source code
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21066
The attached code has compiled fine for several years on g++, and compiles on
the Compaq CXX compiler. It recently gives the following:
/usr/local/bin/g++ -c -g -fno-elide-constructors -pedantic-errors -Werror
-ansi -fno-common -fstrict-aliasing -Wall -Wold-style-cast -Wsign-promo
-Wpointer-
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-17
03:43 ---
Subject: Bug 21025
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-04-17 03:43:01
Modified files:
gcc/cp : ChangeLog typeck.c
gcc/tests
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-17
03:37 ---
Subject: Bug 21025
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Branch: gcc-4_0-branch
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-04-17 03:37:35
Modified files:
gcc/cp : typeck
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-17
03:37 ---
Subject: Bug 21025
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Branch: gcc-3_4-branch
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-04-17 03:37:21
Modified files:
gcc/cp : Change
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-17
03:35 ---
Subject: Bug 21025
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Branch: gcc-3_4-branch
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-04-17 03:35:27
Added files:
gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/templ
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-17
03:30 ---
Subject: Bug 21025
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Branch: gcc-4_0-branch
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-04-17 03:30:17
Modified files:
gcc/cp : Change
--- Additional Comments From roger at eyesopen dot com 2005-04-17 03:06
---
Subject: Re: [PR target/20126, RFC] loop DEST_ADDR biv replacement may fail
On 16 Apr 2005, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Apr 16, 2005, Roger Sayle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Does this clear things up? Do
--- Additional Comments From mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-17
03:00 ---
Retargeted to 4.0.1.
AIX maintainer has indicated that this bug is not particularly critical, and
that the problems are difficult to solve.
--
What|Removed |Added
---
--
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |mark at codesourcery dot com
|dot org |
Status|NEW
--- Additional Comments From mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-17
02:51 ---
This bug report contains no information about reproducing the problems, or even
any evidence that these are in fact compiler bugs, rather than bugs in the
application code. Closing as INVALID.
If addition
--- Additional Comments From mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-17
02:46 ---
Jakub, thank you for applying this patch to the 4.0 branch.
If you've confirmed that the bug has been fixed, would you please remove 4.0
from the summary here, and from the known-to-fail list?
Thanks,
--
--- Additional Comments From mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-17
02:44 ---
This patch is OK for 4.0.0 RC2. Please apply.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20929
--- Additional Comments From mark at codesourcery dot com 2005-04-17 02:43
---
Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1 Regression] Miscompilation with
__attribute ((aligned))
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Additional Comments From jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-16
> 16:15 ---
--- Additional Comments From aoliva at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-17
02:37 ---
Subject: Re: [PR target/20126, RFC] loop DEST_ADDR biv replacement may fail
On Apr 16, 2005, Roger Sayle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Does this clear things up? Do you agree?
Yup, for both questions. Tha
--- Additional Comments From mark at codesourcery dot com 2005-04-17 02:36
---
Subject: Re: [PR middle-end/20739] lvalue cond-expr gimplification may crash
on cv-qual diffs
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> Thanks, Roger had already approved it for mainline, but not yet for
> the branch. Mark
--
Bug 21021 depends on bug 21024, which changed state.
Bug 21024 Summary: fold generates a comparison of two operands whose types do
not match
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21024
What|Old Value |New Value
--- Additional Comments From kazu at cs dot umass dot edu 2005-04-17 01:41
---
Just checked in a patch.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-17
01:38 ---
Subject: Bug 21024
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-04-17 01:38:28
Modified files:
gcc: ChangeLog builtins.c fold-const.c
L
--
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #8663|Simple Testcase showing that|Simple Testcase showing that
description|addind a EventListener |adding a EventListener
--- Additional Comments From gruni dot ca at gmail dot com 2005-04-17
00:45 ---
Created an attachment (id=8663)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=8663&action=view)
Simple Testcase showing that addind a EventListener increments the list by one
This is a testcase I wrote
--- Additional Comments From green at redhat dot com 2005-04-17 00:42
---
I'm seeing this same problem. GCC4 won't build reliably without this fix.
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From roger at eyesopen dot com 2005-04-17 00:21
---
Subject: Re: [PR target/20126, RFC] loop DEST_ADDR biv replacement may fail
Hi Alex,
On 16 Apr 2005, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Apr 15, 2005, Roger Sayle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I agree with your propo
I am using a custom Class wich throws events, by using this I rely on the
EventListenerList Class to hold my Eventlisteners. The Method getListenerList is
used by the method
protected void fireFooXXX() {
// Guaranteed to return a non-null array
Object[] listeners = listenerList.getListen
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-16
23:22 ---
Confirmed.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
E
--- Additional Comments From rth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-16 23:20
---
Fixed.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-16
23:19 ---
Subject: Bug 21051
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-04-16 23:19:35
Modified files:
gcc: ChangeLog builtins.c
gcc/con
--
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |rth at gcc dot gnu dot org
|dot org |
Status|UNCONFIRMED
--- Additional Comments From bothner at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-16
23:05 ---
Created an attachment (id=8662)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=8662&action=view)
Testcase.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21064
The (to-be-shortly) attached testcase (which works with JDK 1.4.x)
causes a NullPointerException:
$ gcj -o SwStyle SwStyle.java --main=SwStyle -g
$ ./SwStyle
Exception in thread "main" java.lang.ExceptionInInitializerError
at java.lang.Class.initializeClass()
(/home/bothner/GNU/install-gcc-4.0/
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-16
22:54 ---
This is weird in that it works on ppc-darwin, maybe the altivec ABI is changing
something or the just
the ABI difference.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17961
ction 'MAIN__':
bug.f90:12: internal compiler error: in gfc_conv_ss_descriptor, at
fortran/trans-array.c:1224
Please submit a full bug report,
bash-2.05b$ gfc --version
GNU Fortran 95 (GCC 4.1.0 20050416 (experimental))
Copyright (C) 2005 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
--
Su
--
What|Removed |Added
CC||pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot
||org
Last reconfirmed|2005-01-23 1
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-16
22:37 ---
Fixed.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
--
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.0.0 |4.0.1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16991
--
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.0.0 |4.0.1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15235
--
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.0.0 |4.0.1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15266
--
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.0.0 |4.0.1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14325
--- Additional Comments From oyvind dot harboe at zylin dot com 2005-04-16
22:05 ---
Created an attachment (id=8661)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=8661&action=view)
Fixes declaration of printf()
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21062
See attached patch.
My GCC superpowers aren't quite up to analyzing this, but I suppose this would
cause problems for e.g. the i2pk target as it would receive size=0 in its
arguments in the function below.
If this can't be sorted out by trivial inspection, please let me know and I'll
run some
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19004
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19608
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19884
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20491
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18212
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20155
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19872
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17652
--- Additional Comments From aoliva at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-16
21:58 ---
Subject: Re: [PR middle-end/20739] lvalue cond-expr gimplification may crash on
cv-qual diffs
On Apr 15, 2005, Jeffrey A Law <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-04-14 at 14:02 -0300, Alexandre Oliva
--- Additional Comments From aoliva at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-16
21:58 ---
Subject: Re: [PR target/20126, RFC] loop DEST_ADDR biv replacement may fail
On Apr 15, 2005, Roger Sayle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I agree with your proposed game plan of keeping the hard failure in
> pl
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-16
21:53 ---
But fixed in 4.0.0 so closing as fixed as this is not a regression.
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From belyshev at depni dot sinp dot msu dot ru
2005-04-16 21:51 ---
*** Bug 21026 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Additional Comments From belyshev at depni dot sinp dot msu dot ru
2005-04-16 21:51 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 2703 ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From belyshev at depni dot sinp dot msu dot ru
2005-04-16 21:50 ---
Not fixed in 3.4.4
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED
--- Additional Comments From aoliva at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-16
21:48 ---
Subject: Re: [PR target/20126, RFC] loop DEST_ADDR biv replacement may fail
On Apr 15, 2005, Roger Sayle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sure. Your patch in comment #28 of bugzilla PR20126 is OK for mainline
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-16
21:42 ---
Subject: Bug 20126
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-04-16 21:42:27
Modified files:
gcc: ChangeLog loop.c
Log message:
--- Additional Comments From james dot kanze at free dot fr 2005-04-16
21:00 ---
Subject: Re: Linker errors when deriving from std::iostream
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-04-16 13:12 ---
> Fixed but r
--- Additional Comments From andreast at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-16
20:16 ---
I just built the tree without awt-gtk enabled. The
gnu/java/awt/peer/gtk/GdkFontMetrics.class is built even without gtk enabled.
So, a command line compile of the class to .o is possible and makes the bug
e
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-16
20:07 ---
Here is the backtrace:
#0 fold_convert (type=0xb7bf8288, arg=0x0) at
/home/peshtigo/pinskia/src/gnu/gcc/src/gcc/fold-
const.c:1883
#1 0x083be08f in bit_from_pos (offset=0xb7bf8288, bitpos=0xb7bf8288)
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-16
19:53 ---
Confirmed on x86-pc-linux-gnu with compiling the generated GdkFontMetrics.class
from gcj build
with the following command line.
gcj -S -gstabs -findirect-dispatch GdkFontMetrics.class
--
What
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-16
19:26 ---
Confirmed.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
E
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-16
19:20 ---
Andrew could you look into this and see why the use info is not being updated
correctly?
Also note the patch in comment #4 is only working around the buggyness of the
use information not
being updated
Said option has no effect.
--
Summary: gfortran ignores -Werror
Product: gcc
Version: 4.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component: fortran
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-16
19:05 ---
*** Bug 21060 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-16
19:05 ---
This is a dup of bug 11026 which is fixed for 4.0.0.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 11026 ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--
For a static member of a template class, the symbol doesn't appear to be
emitted.
For example, with the code:
/*BEGIN CODE*/
#include
template
class Base {
public:
static int bob;
T a;
Base() { printf("Base::Base starting\n"); fflush(stdout); }
~Base() { printf("Base::~Base::b
--- Additional Comments From schlie at comcast dot net 2005-04-16 18:41
---
Subject: Re: Initializing string literal data
improperly marked frame-relative?, should be readonly static const.
> From: Paul Schlie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: [Bug middle-end/21018] Initializing stri
--- Additional Comments From schlie at comcast dot net 2005-04-16 18:22
---
Subject: Re: Initializing string literal data
improperly marked frame-relative?, should be readonly static const.
> Note the C.x variables are not normal VAR_DECLs but CONST_DECL so maybe avr
> should be chang
--- Additional Comments From rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-16
17:50 ---
(In reply to comment #41)
> Subject: Re: [PR target/20126, RFC] loop DEST_ADDR biv replacement may fail
> Sure. Your patch in comment #28 of bugzilla PR20126 is OK for mainline
> to resolve Josh's bootst
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-16
17:37 ---
Fixed in 4.1.0 and above by Daniel's aliasing improvements.
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From phython at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-16
17:12 ---
Created an attachment (id=8654)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=8654&action=view)
Fold stuff
--
What|Removed |Added
-
--
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.1.0 |4.0.1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18399
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-16
16:57 ---
*** Bug 21044 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-16
16:57 ---
This is a dup of bug 18399, the problem comes from recursively inlining.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 18399 ***
--
What|Removed |Added
figure --host=ia64-suse-linux --enable-shared
--enable-threads --enable-__cxa_atexit --with-system-zlib
--with-system-libunwind
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.0.0 20050416 (prerelease)
gcc/cc1 -fpreprocessed m68k-dis.i -quiet -dumpbase m68k-dis.i -auxbase
m68k-dis -O2 -W -Wall -version -o m68k-dis
1 - 100 of 136 matches
Mail list logo
